|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by The Associated Press continues to report escalation in the conflict currently engulfing Israel and its neighbors. Israel, in recent days, expanded its struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah by striking into southern Lebanon by air and blockading her coastline. Most recently, Israel targeted and destroyed the home and office of Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. In addition to attacking militant centers, Israel has also assailed a substantial portion of Lebanon's infrastructure, including power stations and the Beirut airport.
Many now also believe that Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers - the event which touched off the Israeli incursion into Lebanon - is the work of not only of Hezbollah, but two of its patrons, Syria and Iran. The White House has declared that it holds Syria and Iran responsible for the kidnapping, and French President Jacques Chirac has implied the same. Some now wonder if this current conflagration will spread and inflame more of the Middle East, as the list of involved parties seems to grow. Various eschatological beliefs grant the Levant a prominent role at the end of the world. Are the perennial troubles in the Middle East building up to such a climatic finish?
Add a Comment (22)
Email This
Message Author
Israel is sending a loud and clear clarion call-- not just to her enemies, but to her citizens and especially her military: "We will never allow our military, who daily put their lives on the line for the freedom and safety of our people, to be used as pawns or bargaining chips. We will never trade the life of one of our brave warriors for political expediency- no matter the cost." Israel is telling the world that she will never let one of her soldiers hang out to dry.
A question I have to ask: did Hezbollah view Israel's withdrawal from Gaza not as a concession and an overture for peace, but as a weakness to be exploited? Could that be what precipitated their kidnapping of Israeli soldiers- figuring they could now make Israel dance like a trained monkey? If so, they frakked up. Big Time.
Israel is sending a loud and clear clarion call-- not just to her enemies, but to her citizens and especially her military: "We will never allow our military, who daily put their lives on the line for the freedom and safety of our people, to be used as pawns or bargaining chips. We will never trade the life of one of our brave warriors for political expediency- no matter the cost." Israel is telling the world that she will never let one of her soldiers hang out to dry.
I agree with you that this is important... but so are the means that you go about getting back the soldiers. Israel must realize that it's tactics will further escalate blood shed of civilians. Targeting civilians (by both sides) makes you a terrorist and should not be tolerated. Civilian targets (like the only generator in Gaza) will be seen as acts of unjust aggression by the other sides and possibly the global community. So will kidnapping or detaining civilians that don't appear to be militants.
Let us also not forget that both sides of this have past faults that are in play here. There are legitimate claims that Israel may be holding terror suspects unjustly. Innocents may be incarcerated. In some ways it resembles this countries own problems with terror suspects. If the US is guilty of holding innocents then Israel may be too.
I am not condoning Militant actions, but commenting on the subsequent use of force and what ends it may bring.
Unfortunately, the only way to respond to terrorists is with force because that is the only thing they understand and the only thing they respect. If you were to try and sit down with a group of militant terrorists to negotiate a peace agreement or a cease-fire, they would take the opportunity to reach across the table and slit your throat.
While the actions of Israel may escalate the level of violence, violence is the only way that Hezbollah will ever cease to function as a terrorist entity. There is nothing that will ever quench the hate that radical Islamic fundamentalists possess.
Civilian targets (like the only generator in Gaza) will be seen as acts of unjust aggression by the other sides and possibly the global community.
Believe me, I hear what you are saying here. But I am curious what the OmniNerd consensus is on what makes a target legitimate for a military strike. It can be argued both ways for many of these as civilians make use of them for daily life, but terrorist cells and military operations make use of the same infrastructure.
- hospitals
- major roadways
- bridges
- power stations
- water supplies
- water / electrical conduits
- communications grid
- cell phone towers
- crops and agriculture
- manufacturing facilities
- fuel stations
Personally, the only target I would not find viable is the hospital (by Geneva Convention I think). The rest is part of breaking the will of your opposing force. Granted, I am also the one that penned the need to fight immorally to achieve an objective. Found here or here. If one thinks of war as eye-of-sage does, then death is death regardless of how you spin it. May as well achieve that state faster and get it over with.
I have to say this for the forces arrayed against both us in Iraq and Israel...everywhere: they have a firm grasp on the Western World's self-loathing and knee-jerk simpering as well as our belief in the primacy of basic human rights, our Judeo-Christian based morality, decency, honor, and chivalry which they themselves eschew for savagery, hate, and terror. To wit: they will attack from mosques, then cry like school girls with a skinned knee when we blow said mosque up. They use women and children as shields behind whom they attack and then wail and moan and rend their clothes in front of CNN cameras when the women and children get chopped in the crossfire. They generally engage in despicable behavior which gets their own people, homes, and infrastructure destroyed only to act like the victim, knowing full well that there are folks in the West who will ignore the context and decry the violence done by our side. Whatever else you can say, they play the Western Media like ukulele.
You are not entirely alone in your observations. Op-Eds with a similar point of view have begun to appear. A short exerpt from the link provided:
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
This piece by Ralph Peters focuses less on the dispicable actions of our adversaries, and more on the pathetic reaction of the American public. Until someone starts firing Katyusha rockets into downtown Manhattan, CNN and even Fox News won't come around to the right way of thinking. War is nasty business, and we have tied our hands in a vain attempt to make it less so. At least some people are starting to realize it.
Man, in our age and especially in the West, considers it wholly inappropriate, an aberrant form of conflict, when war visits its depredations on the gentler aspects of society, i.e. women, children, and so-called 'civilian infrastructure.' As we look across history, however, and take stock of war as a societal phenomenon, we cannot help but observe how integral that type of activity remains, especially to war when there exists a large disparity between the relative powers of the principal antagonists. I can demonstrate this point by examining two historical vignettes.
During the 'Archidamian' phase of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta would habitually invade Attica each year and ravage the countryside. The Athenians, under Pericles' capable leadership, recognized the Lacedaemonians' overwhelming superiority on land, and therefore retreated behind Athens' long walls during those predatory campaigns. Sparta, hoping to draw out the Athenians, despoiled crops and burned homes, but their strategy failed largely because Athens was able to find succor from their overseas empire. Had the Athenians been unable to feed themselves from imported grain, the Spartan strategy might have worked for the Athenians would have been forced to defend their land and face the Spartan war machine. This refusal to fight openly gave the Spartans over to attacking civilian infrastructure in exchange for pitched battle.
We see similar strategies employed during the Middle Ages. That period of history saw actual battle become increasingly rare, as petty lords were often unwilling to risk open combat with their scant forces. The ubiquitous fortification of Europe and the lack of adequate siege-craft also affected the conduct of warfare at this time. In Medieval Europe raising large armies was difficult, but constructing castles, by comparison, was not. Even a minor noble could solidify his power base by erecting a stronghold, and in doing so, attain sufficient power to even defy the king. Though the king might muster far superior forces in the field, the deplorable condition of medieval siege warfare made reducing fortresses at worst an impossiblity, and at best, a long and costly affair. If faced with a recalcitrant noble, the king might call out his army and march on the rebellious territory, but find his designs thwarted by the brick and mortar of the enemy's keep. In light of this, medieval armies developed a strategy known as the chevauchée. This knightly promenade was really a extended raid that sought to draw out enemy forces by subjecting their lands to privation and the sword. The sequestered noble, who did not wish to give battle to superior forces, would perhaps now be compelled to come out and fight, lest he watch his patronage go up in flames. The basic method was, as Clifford Rogers tells us, 'to devastate the lands unprotected by city walls, so that defenders would have to attack to stop the destruction.' (The Age of the Hundred Years War in Medieval Wafrare, p. 147). It was, in fact, this very technique that allowed the Black Prince to force combat in the campaign that ended in the Battle of Poitiers during the 100 Years War.
If we employ our historical telescope we see that things are not so different today. In Israel's dealings with Hezbollah, we see one power which far outstrips the other in terms of raw military force. Hezbollah sensibly refuses to fight Israel on its own terms. A rifle-wielding infantryman stands little chance against an organized, disciplined combined arms formation which boasts of modern aircraft, artillery and communications. Instead, Hezbollah shoots and runs, hiding behinds its version of the impenetrable wall of the medieval castle - the general populace. Israel's massive material superiority is rendered somewhat void, because they cannot wantonly ravage vast tracks of residential neighborhoods without forfeiting international favor.
Faced with this dilemma, Israel chooses a middle road of sorts. They cannot issue a challenge and have Hezbollah come out and fight. They also can't denude southern Lebanon of life. So they target various aspects of civilian infrastructure, e.g. power plants, airports, etc, because through this they hope to force Hezbollah to come out of their hiding and give battle. At the very least perhaps they hope that they can create such a climate of instability that the population at large will question Hezbollah's ability to manage things. It also forces Hezbollah into the precarious situation of backing up its rhetoric. The Hezbollah leadership is quick to declare 'open war,' but must also realize that coming out and fighting openly is the last thing they want. When Israel rides roughshod over Lebanese towns, the average citizen is forced to ask 'why isn't Hezbollah fighting them; they said they would?' In the end, this policy of targeting civilian infrastructure presents Hezbollah with a quandary: they can fight Israel openly and lose, or not fight and lose credibility with their population. People may disagree with Israel's methods, but, from a purely military/historcial perspective, these techniques are well-established and beholden to a certain impeccable strategic logic. It is somewhat odd, but both sides in this conflict seem at least intuitively aware, though in different senses, of the observation that the military theorist Vegetius made all those centuries ago: It is much better to overcome an enemy by famine, surprise or terror than by general actions, for in the latter fortune has often a greater share than valor. (De Re Militari, Book III General Maxims)
I think I might also take this opportunity to point out that Israel may have a salutary chance in its current dealings with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a distinctly Shi'a organization owing much to its patron Iran. In this sense Hezbollah and Iran share a similar future in that a gain for one can be construed as a gain for both. This would be of little significance, except that, of late, the major Sunni powers have grown very wary of the rising tide of Iranian fortune. They fear that developments in Iraq and the burgeoning nuclear program will make a Shi'a Iran the dominant power in the region. Whereas in previous years we might expect Sunni Arabs to sympathize with a Hezbollah struggle with Israel, now Israel has her foes divided. Sunni nations are unlikely to intervene directly to help Hezbollah because they fear the growing power of Iran. In essence, Israel may be able to quash Hezbollah and secure the general acquiescence of the Sunni world which compasses it on every side. I suspect Israel realizes this and will use this opportunity to uproot much of the Hezbollah network, thus buying themselves perhaps a several year respite while Hezbollah reorganizes. Due to this, I expect Israel to pursue their campaign with considerable ardor. Were they willing, they could perhaps break Hezbollah once and for all.
As an addendum, I will mention that I chose rather antiquated historical examples for my comparison because war as it is conducted now, in my estimation, bears closer resemblance to the wars of bygone years than the struggles of recent memory.
Your right, they do play both sides of the game. But are there any consequences to us doing so as well? Do you believe that we can truly annihilate all terrorist? It's difficult to obliterate an ideal. Now what if you yourself conduct yourself in the same manner as the ideal you seek to destroy, i.e. any means necessary to reach goal? By engaging in the same warfare as a terrorist, and by using unchecked force against civilians, or to use them as pawns only reinforces their ideal. If you could kill them all, then maybe it would work. But if your own actions give rise to more terrorists...then what is the endgame? Your right they don't play fair, but by playing fair ourselves it gives others to see the difference between them and us and perhaps doesn't recruit as many future terrorists. It seems complicated to me, and I don't profess to have the answer. How do you see it though? Do you think engaging in terrorist behavior (like blowing up a mosque with civilians inside though there may be more terrorists inside) would cause more young disillusioned youth to sign up for Hamas or Hezbollah or Al Qaeda?
I don't profess to know all of the answers either, but I will attempt to answer your question as best I can, and perhaps with the minimum amount of snark required by law. First I'd like to clarify a definition here: what constitutes "terrorist behavior." Plowing hijacked planes into buildings, running around a war zone dressed as a civilian and blowing up civilians, forming death squads to murder civilians, kidnapping and video taped decapitations-- these are all examples of terrorist behavior. If uniformed troops are fired upon from a mosque, the mosque is no longer considered a protected structure as it normally would be, and the troops under fire are obliged to respond with adequate and necessary force to remove the threat. If civilians are killed in the mosque, it is strictly the fault of the terrorists using it as a base of fire, not the uniformed troops. Therefore, engaging terrorists in a mosque is not "terrorist behavior".
Now that that is out of the way, wars aren't won by killing everybody on the other side, they are won killing enough people on the other side in such a violent, decisive way as to convince the rest that they have no hope of winning, and surrender. A good case in point is Imperial Japan in WWII. The Japanese, much like the Jihadists we now fight, were not only unafraid of death, they considered it an honor to die for their Emperor, as the Jihadists consider it an express ticket to Paradise. If the US hadn't developed the A bomb when we had, there is a good chance that we would have had to kill a vast number of Japanese- military and civilian- in the event of an invasion. However, after witnessing the devastation wrought by Fat Man and Little Boy, the Japanese realized that there would be no honor in total destruction by nuclear fire, and surrendered.
As for the root causes of terrorism, allow me to cut and paste from this op-ed by David Meir-Levi.
The “roots causes” of terrorism:
1) Poverty?
A) The most poverty-stricken areas of the world (south American indigenous, sub-Saharan Africa, parts of east Asia and India) have produced no terrorism – or almost no terrorists.
B) Almost all terror leaders and many terror perpetrators are or were rich, or at least middle class. Osama bin Laden...
C) The most poverty-stricken populations in the Arab world are in the countries where the rulers live in luxury and keep 90 percent of the country's income for their egregiously luxurious life-style, or for the enhancement of their WMD's and conventional arsenals, while their people starve (Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Saddam’s Iraq)
and
2) Hopelessness, desperation and lack of opportunity?
...But terror groups draw their leadership and rank-and-file from all classes of society. The middle and upper classes in 2nd- and 3rd- world countries are far from hopeless or desperate...
...many of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been well-to-do or even rich men; many of them are high school or college educated professionals with careers – far from hopeless or desperate...
...Even in the case of recruits from refugee camps where hopelessness may be a serious factor in defining the lives and futures of young people there, let’s recall that they have been forced to stay in those camps by their host governments (not by Israel and not by the USA), while much of the aid given to these populations by UNRWA is funded by the USA...
...Consider as well one of several countervailing examples: hundreds of thousands of Burmese have been in refugee camps in Thailand, hopeless, poverty-stricken, desperate, for more than 20 years – terrorism doesn’t not hold sway there.
3) Fury at the West’s "mistreatment" of Moslems?
a) Moslems kill Moslems by the millions and no one in the Arab world cares.
Oh there are a lot of examples for that last one, but I don't want to go nuts cutting and pasting, so here are just a few more quick hits:
b) The USA defends Moslems and the Arab world does not notice.
Bosnia and Kuwait are mentioned.
And there are more excellent points in the op-ed, but you get the point.
As for "disillusioned youth" turning to terrorism, keep in mind that the top terrorist producing nations- Saudi Arabia, "Palestine", etc. have school books that teach children "True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly"; "A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion"; "Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power"; "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus" and "it is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]".
Also popular are cartoons and children's shows such as this one from Iran that promotes suicide bombing; Palestinian Youth Camps where young'uns "learn how to sing 'intifada songs,' including one urging them to 'kill Zionists wherever they are, in the name of God'"; Palestinian boys enjoy playing "Jews and Arabs; and Iranian women attend registration meetings indicating their readiness for martyrdom-- theirs and their children--to support Palestinians against Israel.
So, if anything, I figure a "disillusioned" Muslim youth is one that rejects terrorism.
I find it ironic that N. Korea has been testing a long range missile during all of this commotion. Could it be that N. Korea is attempting to hit SYRIA? Immediate assumptions would be made that Israel puffed out its chest towards Iran and give Iran the recourse needed to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth."
Then we could do the same to Iran and N. Korea....ahahaha **maniacal laugh**
I don't think we could do the same thing to North Korea......China would probably step in..... North Korea is pretty close to China. I don't think the people of the U.S. is ready for another war, especially a one on a country that MAY ACTUALLY have Nuclear Weaponry.
MArk perkel the head of the Church of Reality offered this solution to the whole thing:
Now that Israel and Lebanon are in yet another religious war it makes me wonder how do we resolve the "my God is stronger than your God" wars.
All I see is Jews, Muslims, and Christians all fighting over who God gave property to. Maybe it's time to put it to the test. Let us have a contest to resolve the issue once and for all as to what God's will is.
We will pick a specific day and on that day every religious person in the world will pray at the same time for a miracle that will happen in a specific place at a specific time to get God to reveal who owns the holy lands. God will then create a miracle to indicate the winner who would then get the holy land for all time. If God doesn't show up however then the holy land would go to the Atheists. So that would give God some incentive to show up, unless God wants the Atheists to win.
As an Atheist I'd be willing to accept the challenge because I have "faith" that we would win. So I say to believers, do you have enough faith to accept this challenge? If not - why not? Let's put the decision in God's hands and put an end to religious wars in the Middle East.
PS. If we Realists win then we'll rename Israel to Is-real.
Mark makes many flawed assumptions that would totally invalidate such a test. How can Mark assume "God will then create a miracle to indicate the winner"? How does the lack of a miracle indicate "God wants the Atheists to win"?
There are hundreds of reasons why either of these assumptions would be flawed. If part of the reason God has placed us in this life is to learn to trust Him and His will, then it can easily be seen that He might not kowtow to such a "test." The lack of a miracle, then would indicated nothing. Or, perhaps the absence of a miracle would cause a chain reaction of events that would lead to the greater happiness of the world? In this case, God would actually want the Atheists to win, but it would not prove anything of the Atheists' cause.
Flawed assumptions make a flawed test.
Not only flawed but:
Every good, practicing Christian knows that you don't "test" God. No good, practicing Christian would take up this "test". I'll have to find the passage that supports this in the Bible, but I believe it is in Deuteronomy 6:16.
Every good, practicing Christian knows that you don't "test" God. No good, practicing Christian would take up this "test". I'll have to find the passage that supports this in the Bible, but I believe it is in Deuteronomy 6:16.
Convenient, the Bible includes passages to prevent its own disproof.
Convenient, the Bible includes passages to prevent its own disproof.
That's just how Yahweh rolls.
It's not convenient; it's well-planned. If the purpose of our life here is to learn by faith, why in the world would God organize scripture through prophets in such a way that secular proof could secure its truth?
Though I think this whole little post here is a bit silly, I would like to point out that there is biblical precedent for this little experiment.. I believe it is 1 Kings 18 in which Elijah challenges the priests of Baal to a good old fashioned God-off, fire-takes all. Needless to say, Elijah won. If you guys should be defending anything, you should be calling Mark Perkel for taking a story from the Bible and trying to pass it off as his own. I mean no citation at all, that's just wrong.
The UN wants to send in peacekeepers to take control of southern Lebanon and end the fighting between Israel and hezbollah. I say good luck. I don't think Israel is too thrilled about that idea. Peacekeepers won't do anything except sit around and protect hezbollah while they get stronger. Once they leave Israel will have to deal with a hezbollah that has been resting and recuperating for whoe knows how long. I don't think this one has any chance of making it off the ground.
Well, on the of chance the UN does send peacekeeping forces there, hopefully both the Israleis and Lebonese will keep their kids indoors. (Oh I did not just go there!!! Oh yes I did!!)
Here is a Bill O'Reilly interview with Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman, which is very refreshing because this guy minces no words, avoids diplomo-speak double talk, and puts the cards right on the table.
RSS
i bet it will by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 July 2006
Hezbollah says the're ready for open war and you can bet Iran will supply the ammo. They already have actually. If you look at that link, some of the rockets Hezbollah uses were supplied by Iran. If you were going to vacation in Lebanon, I suggest changing plans. Really, if you were going anywhere over there you might want to try disneyland instead. I predict no end in sight for this one.